Over the years I have noted the idiosyncrasies of how people approach taxes. In some minds no taxes are the only answer. Others would settle for some taxes for some items, but no taxes for other items. Others would like to punish various groups with taxes, as long as no taxes befall them. Some realize we need some taxes to run government, but want no taxes for the people.

So I am wondering where do you stand on the Tax Man issue. No Taxes -to- Never Saw a Tax you didn't like, or somewhere in between.

I see taxes as a necessary evil of running America. I support taxes that help "American" humanity, and oppose the corporate & warfare machine & foreign support.

1.)I want an equal tax that everybody pays the same amount each year, 2.)based on what the poorest among us can pay. (3.)A no-deduction-no-return annual simple tax that 4.)government must work within an a budget.

On the other hand, if the only way I can stop taxes going to corporations, rich, & warfare is demand NO TAXES, then I would give up any taxes to humanity, stop all government programs & tighten the nut on Congress & the President, with the power directly in the hands of the people.

I do not oppose taxes. I would prefer an idea like the Fair Tax, because I believe that it assists the poor keeping them from paying any taxes at all in some cases.

I do not like our current tax system as it rewards dishonesty and allows Congress way too much power. If an equitable "Fair Tax" System could not be written, I would settle for a Flat Tax (percentage based).

I have no problem paying taxes and supporting my country. I have no problem paying taxes and having some of those taxes go to the poor in the form of Welfare or other services. I think our major problem is too much pork and not enough concern for those in true need.

I do have a problem with the tax code being written so that those with power and the means to coerce their representatives can arrange tax breaks for themselves.

With regard to taxation and allowing Congress to raise a federal revenue in a manner which preempted the very sufferings we now experience, our founders relied upon principles which are as valid today as when our Constitution went into effect. For example, our founders intended that Congress use taxes at our water&#8217;s edge as a first means to fill our national treasury which not only had foreigners filling our national treasury for the privilege of doing business on American soil, just as one pays for a ticket to set up a booth at a flea market to sell one&#8217;s goods and wares, but restricting Congress to raising its revenue from taxes imposed on judiciously selected articles of consumption which are imported, not only does such a system allow the market place to determine the allowable limit of tax on each article selected, but when Congress is compelled to raising its revenue by taxing consumption as our founders intended, it becomes in Congress&#8217; self interest to encourage a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn leads to a productive consumption and thus a healthy flow of revenue into the federal treasury. This too applies to internal excise taxes imposed upon articles of consumption which our founders intended to be used as an additional, but second means to fill the national treasury. In the end our founders rightfully chose the market place to limit the amount of tax on each article selected. Hamilton explains taxing consumption in the following manner, they:

---may be compared to a fluid, which will in time find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be by his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his own resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions

"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.&#8221;___ Federalist No 21

And what was to happen if an emergency arises, such as war, and imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on consumption were found insufficient to meet public exigencies? Our wise founding fathers solved this problem by allowing Congress an additional power of taxation, the power to lay a general tax among the States to raise a specific sum needed. But in such cases the rule of apportionment was written into our Constitution and a very real movement of accountability would be created when laying this tax. Each State&#8217;s Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill in hand for their State&#8217;s Governor and Legislature to deal with to extinguish the deficit created by Congress. Upon receiving its bill from a State&#8217;s Congressional Delegation the Governor and Legislature were then required to transfer its State&#8217;s apportioned share from the State&#8217;s treasury into the national treasury or raise additional taxes within the State and then transfer that money into the federal treasury to extinguish the deficit created by Congress. And it is also important to note that the rule of apportionment precludes the despotic use of class warfare when imposing the general tax among the states as each State&#8217;s share of the burden is determine by a fixed formula, and each state was intended to raise it&#8217;s share in it is own chosen way. The formula for this special tax to raise a specific sum to extinguish a deficit ties representation and taxation by the same standard, each state&#8216;s population size, and its burden turns out to be an equal per capita tax if laid directly upon the people:

States&#8217; population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE&#8217;S SHARE

Total U.S. Population

State`s Population
_______________ X House membership (435) = State`s No.of Reps
population of U.S.

Unfortunately, instead of working to re-establish our founding father&#8217;s original tax plan and its honest money system, both of which paved the way for a free market system to work and flourish, and resulted in America becoming the economic marvel of the world, America&#8217;s political pundits prefer to incite partisan politics while the leadership of both political parties work in concert to corrupt our founder&#8217;s plan in order to lay claim to what America has produced, and they do so using a dishonest money system and dishonest taxation, both of which were specifically rejected by our founding fathers.

So why is it that not one of our &#8220;conservative&#8221; talk show pundits will compare our founder&#8217;s constitutionally mandated honest money and their honest system of taxation to what is currently used by the Washington Establishment to seize what America has produced? Who among the following list has taken the time to discuss our Constitution&#8217;s original plan as our founding fathers intended it to operate: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, &#8230;. WHO? But isn&#8217;t it surprising the above do know how to fan the flames of political partisanship which causes a distraction from any meaningful focus and discussion about reforming the legislative powers used to cause our miseries?

And who among those who are running for office advocate real reform by returning to the honest money and honest taxation as written into our Constitution by our founders, and was specifically designed by our founders to preclude our existing miseries and the plundering of America&#8217;s wealth now engaged in by our folks in Washington?

Bottom line is, until Congress&#8217; hands are rebound by our Constitution&#8217;s honest money system and honest taxation, the American People will continue to be the slaves of a government they created to be their servant.

Is it not time to focus upon specific measures to remove the legislative powers now used to enslave us? How about starting with working to add the following 32 words to our Constitution?

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

These words, if added to our Constitution, would return us to our founding father&#8217;s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which Congress now uses to enslave America&#8216;s businesses, its industrial and manufacturing base, and they would end the slavish tax which now

JWK

If we can make the majority of America&#8217;s families dependent upon a federal government check, [the Herman Cain fair tax family consumption entitlement] we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America&#8217;s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ___Our Washington Establishment&#8217;s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which America&#8217;s labor and business has produced.

7% general sales tax on all retail transactions
+
7% income tax on individual income in excess of $3 million per year. EVERYONE earns their first $3 million tax free.

No corporate tax other than on what they spend, no bullshit loopholes or special treatment, no huge IRS bureaucracy to support collecting at the retail level because consumption taxes are collected at the wholesale level.

A consumption tax is inherently unfair to the lower incomes.
An income tax is inherently unfair to the upper incomes.

Simple taxes = fair taxes. A simple blend of consumption and income taxes is fair.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!